What are you suggesting?
Starting with the current base health of 150 hp for level 1 wall:

Level

Health Increase

Armour Increase

1-9

+50

+4

10-19

+75

+5

20-29

+100

+6

30-39

+200

+7

40-48

+300

+8

(Increase with each level upgrade)

How will it change the interface/gameplay/battles/system?
Wall stats adjusted to reflect this change when the wall is selected. Increased health and armour stats during land battles with walls.

Suggestion Reason:
The aim is to make the enormous investment in high level walls more than just wanting to get a higher TS, but to also improve the defence of the town (significantly).
The wall at level 48 can still be breached (maths explanation below), so it is not now invincible.

Special Notes:
Idea taken from Quartz post on the suggestion page linked above. If you agree with this proposal, please vote yes on the original!

33 rounds for the whole wall is fine. For most battles you only need to breach one segment, not destroy the whole wall. And you can wave the mortars if needed. And the player has used Ambrosia and millions of resources to get the Town Wall to that level. A maximum level wall should be tough.

This would make war on land even less potent than it is now, effectively making declared alliance wars into declared naval wars. As it is now it is already pointless to meet an online opposing force in his own town if the wall is above level 40 ish. It is at this point the wall can take a couple hits before going down, and therefore also the point of which you can keep dragging units back and forth to only raise the wall once the opponents mortars has been dealt with.
I agree that the investment into the townwall feels pointless since the only real change you recieve is the amount of hoplites the opposing force looses, and at 1.4 gs a piece, that really won't be felt. Sadly I am also quite shure that simply buffing the stats for the wall won't be the solution for this problem.

I agree that the investment into the townwall feels pointless since the only real change you recieve is the amount of hoplites the opposing force looses, and at 1.4 gs a piece, that really won't be felt. Sadly I am also quite shure that simply buffing the stats for the wall won't be the solution for this problem.

I suggested these changes to the wall (particularly the armour buffs) to greatly increase its durability, rather than its ability to kill opposing enemy forces, as I see the wall as a defensive structure designed to greatly increase the frontline defence (if enough RSS invested).

Its not as simple as killing some more hoplites, but preventing your backline and support from taking significant damage, and saving your frontline troops for many more rounds (not just the current 2 or 3).
Although if you have a better solution, we're ready to hear, but IMO this is a good improvement

I agree that the wall is supposed to be a defensive structure, but as it stands you can't ignore it's potency as an agressive mean either.
Shure you can increase the health the wall has, but for this to be viable you have to either concede being able to have fair lategame fights on land, or the damage the wall does, as well as making the attacking frontline equally immune. Since option two would be sort of dumb, option one would have to be it. Now already I'm not much for fighting on land since meeting a competent opponent online will 100% of the time turn into a loss if fighting in his own town, these changes (allowing the wall to stand for 33 rounds), would give players 8 hours and 15 minutes to come online and press either colossus, or get rid of ressources. I find this window to be way too large, quite simply removing a large chunk of the advantage you receive for putting a lot of time into the game.
When changing this you also have to consider that these changes will primarily affect the lategame. Lategame being the more boring phase of Ikariam, where war quickly turns into the only activity that makes people want to invest time in the game.

So no, I don't have a better proposal. I quite honestly don't see the need for buffs to the wall. It provides an advantage that is already on the side of overpowered for the active defender, and I am of the belief that Ikariam is supposed to reward an active playstyle over its relaxed counterpart.

Also I forgot to point out. The wall won't be breached in 5 rounds. Every round damage taken to the wall is equally split among every segment of the wall. This means that the wall will be breached when the average health comes down to the 1440 dmg it would take a round, minus the accuracy penality from mortars. I'm not gonna take the time to calculate it, but I would estimate it breaching around round 26, which still leaves 6h 30min of 30 mortars actively hitting the wall.

I understand now where you're coming from, which is that we shouldn't overly reward passive style of play, and I agree with that. My only issue is that, as it stands, the RSS invested in the wall do not merit the gain (vs in more aggressive ways such as an offensive army of mortars etc.) from my view.

We could for example reduce wall durability and increase its area of attack (to say all groups of units), but I do think that the wall needs improving and this is one way of doing so. (Rather than attack buffs)

Also you would need the highest level wall (48) to get a ~26 round breach. Most walls are around lvl 40 which are considerably quicker to breach. Fair enough if you don't agree with the buffs, but I do think it balances aggressive vs passive better.

Shure, as I said earlier I agree that the investment into the wall seems pointless in the end. However you making the assumption that most walls are level 40 is just plain wrong, and sort of goes to prove that this sugestion do not have sufficient backing based on observation and experience. It takes around 2 years to reach 4 million ts with a semi-active playstyle and without the use of premium currency. At this point walls will average level 30. Since growth is expenentional I think it is safe to assume that to reach level 40 walls all around it would take another 1-2 years. In other words, this average only accounts for servers greater than 4 years of age, at which point active war has died out far before. I am the owner of several accounts way past the 10 mil mark, and I have accounts spread across 5 different countries, and as such I am taking my own experience and mastery of the combat system as it is now as a source for my criticism.

My primary point of concern is that buffing the wall will punish the few active players on older servers, and thus push away even more players. If the wall is overbuffed the only viable way of leading a war on land will be pay-to-win, of which is a style I left behind when piracy was nerfed, and honestly not a post I want to put back on my budget list. If a buff to the wall were to happen it would have to be very delicatly calculated as so not ruining war on land, while at the same time leaving the possibilty for passive players to play in peace.

Now this could be buffing the health of walls, but in doing this also making as so the secondary line can be hit while defending, afterall, how else will they shoot from up there. Giving them some sort of defensive bonus while "wall-mounted" could make up for the difference in front lost, thus making war equally potent, but plundering less potent.

I didn't make any assumptions. I looked at the cities of the 20+ mill players (to just over 30mil) in my alliance (about 12 players) and saw that their walls range from level 30 to 44, and I saw only 2 players with walls over level 40. About half were under level 35. They have been playing many many years so it's just not true to say that level 40+ walls is a standard. I checked my alliance and they aren't anywhere near as common as you make it out to be.

It seems that the players you fought against may have been unrepresentative, and that they built up their walls specifically to give themselves that extra bit of defence.

I like the idea of walls giving a defensive bonus to garrisoned troops, but I thought the second line can already be hit by balloons? (I'm not sure on that). That way active players with militaries benefit from the walls, and players who don't support the wall with additional units don't get anywhere near as much benefit. Although if you now have wall mounted units, then the wall should also be able to hit other enemy troops as well as front lines, so it does get more complicated. Could work, but seems difficult to explain in detail how the new wall attack and defensive boost would operate.

Shure they awerage that on your server, but the larger amount of players are residing on newer servers, and on here the walls are way below 30-40, which was my point.
The secondary firingline is virtually invinsible and can't be hit unless the entire front is gone. Neither can these units hit anything but front. This would still be the case for my suggestion with the exception that the units on the wall can be hit. The defensive bonus would have to be of the size so that even amounts of gs would be lost on both sides. My proposal is not to make the wall a capable force in doing actual damage to gs, but rather to make it usable as a front line. Having gs in town should always be rewarded.

Ok, although I don think that the attacker should (with a sufficient level wall of 30+) take more damage to his units, and with a level 40+ wall, take significantly more damage (whilst the wall is standing). Fair enough if you disagree, I just like the idea of a significant advantage for the defender who has invested in their defence (wall and army) and has the home ground.

I agree that it makes thematical sence.
However if you reward size in such a direct way, you are quite directly making the difference between paying users and non-paying users larger, which is a poor design philosophy for any competetive multiplayergame.
Give as many advantages to town progression and alike as you want, but the moment the fairness in war is gone, I am gone too.

Give as many advantages to town progression and alike as you want, but the moment the fairness in war is gone, I am gone too.

Fair, I think in that case that a more even balance would be without any armour buffs, and only the modest health buffs shown in my original thread. That way fairness in war and ability to damage and destroy the wall (in the same way as they are currently) is maintained.